Analyzing the benefits of reading strategy instruction for reading comprehension in L2 English learners

(1)

KULTUR–SPRÅK–MEDIER

Independent Project with Specialization in English

Studies and Education

15 credits, basic level

Analyzing the benefits of reading strategy

instruction for reading comprehension in

L2 English learners

En analys av de positiva effekterna av lässtrategiundervisning på läsförståelse hos

L2 Engelskaelever

Gustav Wibell-Kähr

Filip Nilsson Ek

Master of Arts in Secondary Education: Upper secondary school 300 credits English Studies and Education 17 January 2020

Examiner: Damon Tutunjian Supervisor: Damian Finnegan

(2)

2

Abstract

This study investigates the potential benefits of reading strategy instruction in the English classroom in an L2 learner context. We examined the effects of reading strategy instruction on reading comprehension for L2 learners and investigated how reading strategies should be taught in the context of Swedish upper secondary school. To this end, six empirical studies were evaluated. We found that reading strategy instruction had a positive impact on reading comprehension in general, but that it was especially effective for certain student groups. Namely, intermediate learners benefitted more than other groups, while the weakest students improved the least in response to instruction. Furthermore, the research we examined suggests that it may be advantageous to focus on teaching a single strategy at a time. However, it is important to eventually expand students’ range of strategies long-term, since many pupils tend to over-rely on problem-solving strategies to the detriment of their progress in reading. Thus, emphasizing the less frequently used support strategies during instruction may help students read more efficiently. Additionally, for reading strategies to best benefit learners, they should be taught in a clear, step-by-step manner. Finally, we argue that using aspects of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory to inform lesson plans would greatly benefit students, especially those who are less proficient. Due to the lack of research in the increasingly heterogeneous Western world, future research should investigate how reading strategy instruction behaves in a multicultural context in the West. Key terms: Reading strategies, L2, metacognitive strategies, active reading, top-down strategies, bottom-up strategies

(3)

3

Individual contributions

We hereby certify that all parts of this essay reflect the equal participation of both signatories below.

The parts we refer to are as follows: • Planning

• Research question selection

• Article searches and decisions about the outline of the essay • Presentation of findings, discussion, and conclusion

• Writing

Authenticated by:

Gustav Wibell-Kähr Filip Nilsson Ek

(4)

4

In the context of Swedish upper secondary education, good linguistic skills, especially in reading, are essential for students to succeed academically. English serves as a lingua franca in higher education and the expanding international job market; therefore, sufficient knowledge of the language is important from the perspective of preparing students for adulthood. Furthermore, young people consume a variety of media in English. At the same time, equity between different socioeconomic groups is a growing issue in Swedish schools (Skolvärlden, 2020), partly due to segregation and unsuccessful integration in the wake of substantial immigration from the developing world. As a result, there is a need to provide teachers with concrete tools they can use to strengthen the reading ability of weaker students.

During our respective training-in-the-field periods (VFU) in southern Sweden, we found that some upper secondary students struggled immensely with reading comprehension in the English language classroom. Some could barely read texts without the use of a dictionary. Written instructions often had to be explained orally and, in some cases, directly translated. Although students in the science program generally showed a higher degree of comprehension, few actually engaged with the text interactively. Many viewed it as a piece of information to be absorbed and then forgotten. We found that many 17-18-year-old students required material to be read aloud to them during tests. At the same time, reading as a skill is not explicitly taught once students finish elementary school; at this point, they are expected to read proficiently and intuitively. Those who do not face an uphill battle, since reading is an integral part of many subjects (e.g. history, civics, etc.) (Gatcho & Hajan, 2019). Unfortunately, it is often the case that students are left to their own devices during reading exercises, which usually consist of answering a set of questions related to a certain text. Without proper scaffolding for individual learners, this approach may exacerbate differences in ability between proficient readers and those who are struggling.

The explicit teaching of reading strategies shows some promise as a compensatory measure to facilitate reading comprehension in weaker students. Reading strategies can be categorized under higher-order thinking or metacognition, a concept coined by Flavell in 1976 as a term for the process by which people manage the interplay between consciousness and cognition (Iwai, 2011), alternatively construed as the process of “thinking about thinking” (Pammu, Amir & Maasum, 2014; Zhussupova & Kazbekova, 2016). This includes, among other things, the awareness of, and ability to reflect upon, knowledge, learning, and objects of attention as they manifest in the mind of the learner. Reading strategies comprise a form of metacognitive skills and can be categorized

(6)

6

in a number of different ways. Two common categories are bottom-up and top-down strategies. Bottom-up strategies are detail-oriented and focus on word-level meaning, sentence structure, and textual details, e.g. using dictionaries to look up words. Top-down strategies are more holistic and involve searching for main ideas and using background knowledge to make predictions about a text (Plakans, 2009). From a bottom-up perspective, meaning can be said to reside in the text for the reader to absorb. From a top-down perspective, the meaning is constructed by the reader through the activation of his/her background knowledge. A more detailed categorization of reading strategies can be found in the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI). MARSI is a self-questionnaire that uses a 5-point Likert scale to grade students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. It lists 30 different strategies, categorized into three main sub-groups: Global strategies, problem-solving strategies, and support strategies. Global strategies involve pre-reading activities such as planning what to read and setting intentions for the reading. Problem-solving strategies are called upon during actual reading and involve checking comprehension, adjusting reading speed, and engaging in close reading when needed. Support strategies deal with the use of outside materials to assist reading comprehension, like summarizing information, using dictionaries, and highlighting text. (Pammu, Amir & Maasum, 2014).

A substantial body of research has found that awareness of reading strategies correlates with better reading comprehension (Dabarera, Renandya & Zhang, 2014). However, an increase in reported strategy use in weaker students does not necessarily result in improved performance (Pammu, Amir & Maasum, 2014). Consequently, there is a need to ascertain exactly to what extent the explicit teaching of reading strategy improves reading comprehension and investigate how instruction should be designed to maximize benefits. Additionally, studies on the topic have yet to be conducted in a Swedish context, necessitating a review of current research in order to deduce possible options for effective reading strategy instruction in Swedish schools. When discussing potential implementations in this context, Piaget’s cognitive theory becomes especially relevant due to its lasting influence within education. According to Piaget’s cognitive theory, the individual has a natural drive to search for conceptual understanding and context. Piaget claims that while learning, students further their knowledge by assessing their surroundings and seeking generalizations and patterns that can explain their experiences (Greeno, Collins & Resnick, 1996, as cited in Korp, 2011). Another important theory to consider when discussing the practical aspects of reading strategy instruction in Swedish schools is Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory. According to this theory, knowledge and comprehension are constructed through social interaction (Lundahl, 2019). A particularly important aspect of sociocultural theory is the zone of

(7)

7

proximal development (ZPD), which Vygotsky defined as the difference between what individuals can achieve on their own (labeled the “actual development zone”) and what they can achieve with support. The range of an individual’s ZPD is a more important predictor of academic success than their actual development zone (Korp, 2011). Thus, it is important to understand what students can achieve with extraneous support when considering how to scaffold instruction.

The national agency for education in Sweden (Skolverket) supports the development of reading strategies for the subject of English in upper secondary school. Namely, the syllabus for English contains the following overarching aims which can be seen to directly relate to reading strategies:

● Understanding of spoken and written English, and also the ability to interpret content. ● The ability to use different language strategies in different contexts.

● The ability to adapt language to different purposes, recipients and situations. (Skolverket, 2011b, p. 2)

In the context of reading strategies, this means that students should learn how to successfully apply strategies to deal with a variety of text types, e.g. academic texts, essays, fiction, etc., how to approach reading in formal and informal contexts and how to deal with text in solitary and group situations. Furthermore, the grading criteria for English 5 in the syllabus stipulate that:

Pupils can understand the […] content and […] details of English […] in clearly expressed written English in various genres. Students show their understanding by in basic terms giving an account of, discussing and commenting on content and details, and with acceptable results act on the basis of the message and instructions in the content. Students can choose and […] use strategies to assimilate and evaluate the content of […] written English. […] In addition, students can choose and use […] strategies which […] solve problems and improve their interaction. […] (Skolverket, 2011b, p. 4)

Thus, the steering documents clearly state that students should learn how to use reading strategies when reading texts of different types, and consciously select strategies to problem-solve and facilitate interaction (e.g. when reading peer feedback or preparing to comment on the work of other pupils).

(8)

8

In sum, it is of utmost importance that students in upper secondary education learn to read as well as they possibly can in preparation for life after graduation. Due to rising inequity in schools and a recent influx of immigrants from poorer countries to Sweden, additional efforts should be directed towards implementing potential compensatory tools to remedy the situation; to that end, reading strategy instruction shows some promise. However, additional analytical efforts are required to confirm to what extent reading strategy instruction correlates with subsequent improvements in reading comprehension, and how instruction should be designed so as to maximize such gains.

(9)

9

2. Aim and research questions

The primary focus area of this paper will be investigating to what extent reading strategy instruction translates into improved reading comprehension. Due to the current lack of research in a Swedish context, we will examine studies conducted in other contexts and discuss how the findings could be relevant to the Swedish school system. The following research questions will be addressed:

● To what extent does reading strategy instruction benefit reading comprehension in L2 learners?

● How should reading strategies be taught in the Swedish L2 classroom in upper secondary school to best facilitate reading comprehension?

(10)

10

3. Method

For this project, we mainly used online databases to acquire information relevant to our research field. Other sources include books on didactics, L2 language teaching, and education.

3.1 Search Delimitations

We based our research on peer-reviewed studies published in international journals. Our initial goal was to acquire a variety of resources to provide different perspectives on the field of reading strategies for L2 English learners. To narrow down our sources we excluded any study that did not research the explicit use of English as an L2 language. The definition of L2, EFL (English as a Foreign Language), and ESL (English as a Second Language) differ between researchers. Consequently, the terms ESL or EFL tell us nothing about the general proficiency level of learners in either group. To avoid any confusion, we thus decided to treat all three as L2 for the purpose of this study.

We used the following online search sites: ● Sciencedirect

● ERIC via EBSCO ● ERIC via ProQuest

● Google (for specific works by renowned scholars such as Vygotsky and Piaget)

These were available through Malmö University’s online research functions. We limited our search to articles published between 2010-2020 to avoid outdated findings.

After careful consideration, we decided to include several older publications due to their significant findings, lasting relevance for the research field, or overwhelming influence on educational research (as in the case of Vygotsky and Piaget). These were all found in the references section of newer publications and located using Google search. A few books on didactics, language teaching, and education were referenced, and these were retrieved from the Malmö University Library. The following keywords were used in our searches in different combinations: Reading strategies, L2,

metacognitive strategies, active reading, top-down strategies, bottom-up strategies

Initially, we set out to investigate metacognition and reading strategies, and chose keywords relating to these concepts.

(11)

11 3.2 Inclusion Criteria

We preferentially selected research on subjects who were as close as possible to our intended target group (students in Swedish secondary education). In practice, this meant that our initial focus was to find research on students in high-school equivalent age groups (15-20). Due to lack of material, we decided to widen our criteria to include studies conducted on university students as well as younger learners (11-15). Piaget claims that students start to develop abilities relating to abstract thinking (such as metacognition) around age 12 (Beard, 1969), and thus we judged that younger learners could be included in the study provided that they show an advanced achievement profile. 3.3 Exclusion Criteria

Several articles were excluded which focused on local issues specific to a certain cultural setting, far removed from our intended context. Additionally, studies that focused on reading strategies as a means to achieve goals other than improving reading comprehension (like vocabulary training, for instance) were excluded due to lack of relevance for our research questions.

3.4 Source Descriptors

The table below presents sources used for research in this project, aiming to clarify their relevance to the research question.

Table 1. Empirical studies

Area of interest Total number of references Number of references used

Reading strategy intervention 14 9

MARSI self-report questionnaire 3 3

(12)

12

4. Results

In this paper, we set out to investigate to what degree reading strategy instruction affects the reading comprehension of L2 learners, and how reading strategies should be taught in the English classroom in the context of Swedish upper secondary education. We will briefly summarize the research and synthesize the results. The first three studies examined which reading strategies students used most frequently, while the last three were chiefly concerned with the effects of reading strategy instruction on reading comprehension over time.

Barrot (2016) investigated if L2 readers’ use of reading strategies differed according to text type. The participants were twenty-one L2 learners (16-17 years) at a private university in the Philippines. They read 20 different types of texts, such as recount, procedural, narrative, expository, persuasive, and transactional. Based on a diagnostic test, the learners were considered to be of intermediate proficiency level. MARSI was used to measure the use of reading strategies. However, only reading strategies that were explicitly represented in the national curriculum were assessed (16 items out of MARSI’s 30 total). The participants read three texts in a 90-minute session and completed the MARSI questionnaire immediately afterward. The results showed that students employed a wide range of strategies, but that text type did not significantly affect which types were used. Global strategies were used far more frequently overall (average 3.63 on MARSI’s 5-point Likert scale), followed by problem-solving strategies (average 3.42) and support strategies (average 3.1). Barrot asserts that this knowledge can help teachers promote specific reading strategies that benefit the learners. Furthermore, the outcome clarifies relationships between awareness of reading strategy and text types for learners. The author claims that using several strategies in conjunction makes readers more adaptable; consequently, he argues that learners should be taught to use different strategies simultaneously.

A similar study was conducted by Pammu, Amir, and Maasum (2014), who studied metacognitive awareness of reading strategies in forty L2 English readers at a university in Indonesia. The study was conducted in response to a lack of research on low-performing students, and the participants’ English proficiency level was below average according to the TOEFL pre-test. The MARSI questionnaire revealed that poor learners reported high awareness of problem-solving reading strategies, like close-reading to understand difficult passages, with a mean score of 3.62. However, the participants showed only medium awareness of global (mean score 3.16) and support strategies (mean score 3.24). In particular, students rarely read selectively, skimmed, or previewed text. Due to the relatively infrequent use of global strategies, Pammu et al. suggests that less proficient

(13)

13

learners need additional instruction in how to apply these strategies in order to improve their performance on reading tasks. In sum, both Barrot (2016) and Pammu et al. (2014) argue that teaching reading strategies benefits the development of learners’ reading comprehension.

Similarly, Daguay-James and Bulusan (2020) investigated the use of reading strategies among 403 Filippino university students (19-20 years) across different academic fields using the MARSI questionnaire. An ancillary objective was to facilitate L2 learners’ use of reading strategies and to give teachers tools for familiarizing students with reading strategies. A significant difference in strategy use was found between different academic fields, with criminology students using reading strategies somewhat less frequently than the other fields (medical laboratory science, political science, psychology among others). Reading strategies that involve planning were seldom used. The use of global and support strategies differed between participants depending on fields of study. All groups used problem-solving strategies to roughly the same extent, however. Global strategies were the least favored overall (mean score 3.62), with support strategies (mean score 3.63) and problem-solving (mean score 3.90) seeing more frequent use. Since the use of reading strategies differed between academic fields, the authors conclude that this is likely due to the variety of text types common to each field. This means that instructors should devote additional time to teach and explain a wide variety of strategies, to make sure that students have the tools to deal with different text types. These implications give further credence to Barrot’s (2016) suggestion of using a multi-strategy approach to increase readers’ adaptability.

Some congruent trends in strategy use are apparent between learners in the three studies above. Barrot (2016) found that intermediate-level learners preferred using global strategies to support their reading. In contrast, Pammu et al. (2014) found that global strategies were the least frequently used strategy type by less proficient learners, indicating that less proficient learners either lack sufficient facility decoding text to be able to use more advanced strategies, or that their reading suffers partly as a result of poor use of global strategies such as planning. Most students rely heavily on problem-solving strategies (such as close reading, adjusting reading speed, and re-reading). Overall, support strategies are employed less frequently. This may be due to perceptions that these strategies require additional effort and the use of other skills to support reading (summarizing, paraphrasing, thinking about which questions the text should answer).

Unlike Barrot (2016), Pammu et al. (2014), and Daguay-James and Bulusan (2020), Zhussupova and Kazbekova (2016) investigated the effects of explicit teaching of reading strategies on learners’ reading comprehension over time. The participants were 60 second-year L2 learners at a university in Kazakhstan. The First Certificate for English (FCE) test was used to assess learners’ abilities.

(14)

14

Subsequently, students were scored on a 10-point scale as a reflection of their competence. Fifty-three percent of the students achieved 3-4 points, 20% achieved 5-6 points, 16% achieved 7-8 points and 10% achieved the highest 9-10 point score. A reading comprehension test consisting of open-ended questions was used to qualitatively assess metacognitive awareness in learners. Over 15 weeks, students received 3 hours of strategy instruction per week while reading short stories. Instructions were based on a guide the researchers had constructed for teaching metacognitive strategies to improve reading comprehension. Strategies taught included self-questioning, thinking aloud while performing tasks, and making graphic representations. Instruction included 3 stages: preparation, active work, and analysis. During the preparation, students were made aware of a particular type of strategy and asked to discuss in groups how (if) they used it in their reading. In the active work phase, the learners were taught how to apply the strategy to a specific text and to log their thoughts in a journal. Finally, for the analysis, the participants were asked to think about how to use what they had learned when reading other texts. The post-test revealed that while reading comprehension in the control group remained unchanged, the experimental group improved their average score significantly, from 52% to 84%. The authors conclude that reading strategy instruction is a beneficial tool for improving reading comprehension in L2 learners. It is important to note that Zhussupova and Kazbekova are the only researchers in the group who advocated a single-strategy approach to reading, giving more in-depth instruction on a limited set of strategies, one at a time.

The relationship between reading strategy instruction, the process of learning strategies, and its effects on English reading achievement has also been investigated by Akkakoson (2013) at a science and technology-oriented university in Thailand. Students were divided into two groups of 82 participants (164 total). The experimental group received explicit strategy instruction, while the control group received traditional teacher-centered instruction. The Nelson-Denny Reading Test (NDRT) was used to determine students’ level of reading comprehension before and after the study. Pre-test measures showed an average score of 25%, indicating poor reading comprehension overall. A 46-item self-report questionnaire was administered to assess the perceived use of reading strategies by the student body. This questionnaire bears a striking resemblance to MARSI and most of the strategies taught by Akkakoson were very similar to the ones listed in MARSI, such as scanning for explicit information, paraphrasing, and adjusting reading rate. On average, students reported using strategies somewhat frequently (average 2,63 on a 5-point Likert scale). The time allotted to instruction was comparable to the study by Zhussupova and Kazbekova (2016): this experimental group also received 3 hours of instruction per week over 14 weeks. However, unlike Zhussupova and Kazbekova, Akkakoson (2013) favored a multi-strategy approach, encouraging

(15)

15

students to use multiple strategies in conjunction during reading. These strategies included advance organization, goal-setting, skimming for gist, and interacting with the text. A portfolio approach was used to assess their development during this time. Students were required to fill out entries each week, logging how they applied previously taught strategies to their own reading material. The recorded material was then analyzed by the researchers. This approach is similar to the journal approach used by Zhussupova and Kazbekova (2016), although Akkakoson (2013) did not specifically ask students to reflect on how to apply strategies to other texts, or discuss their experiences with their peers. Learners were divided into three groups based on their level of proficiency. Mid- and high-level proficiency students tended to give detailed descriptions of several strategies (70% and 100% of the time, respectively) while low-level students gave basic descriptions of a single strategy 80% of the time. After the intervention, the experimental cohort raised its average score on the NDRT by around 10% in the post-test, indicating a slight improvement in average reading comprehension -- significantly less impressive than the results reported by Zhussupova and Kazbekova (2016). Due to the low overall score of the learners in the study, Akkakoson (2013) hypothesized that the test may have been too difficult for them to properly apply what they were taught. However, the author found that more proficient learners adapted better to strategy instruction and used strategies more efficiently, as evident by the detailed descriptions of the strategies they used.

Similar findings were demonstrated by Dabarera, Renandya, and Zhang (2014), who investigated the effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on reading comprehension in 67 L2 learners in Singapore (12-15 years, average 12.1). Learners were at the upper end of the achievement spectrum for their age group, with 92,5% receiving grade A or B on the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). A standardized multiple-choice test (UNSW ICAS English competition Paper F) was used to determine reading comprehension before and after the intervention. Like Barrot (2016), Pammu et al. (2014) and Daguy-James and Bulusan (2020), Dabarera et al. used MARSI self-reports to evaluate students’ use of reading strategies. The pre-test MARSI questionnaire showed a 2.95 average and a preference for problem-solving strategies (3.48) followed by global (2.91) and support strategies (2.54). Students received two 60-minute lessons per week for five weeks, and all 30 strategies included in MARSI were covered at least once during this time. Like Barrot (2016) and Akkokoson (2013), Dabarera et al. (2014) favored a multiple-strategy approach and encouraged students to use several strategies simultaneously. At the beginning of each lesson, students were asked to read texts from UNSW ICAS tests and discuss them with each other. Relevant strategies from MARSI were then explained in relation to the particular texts. Finally, students answered the comprehension questions which followed each text. The teacher played a

(16)

16

less prominent role than in the studies by Zhussupova and Kazbekova (2016) and Akkakoson (2013). During the first two lessons, the teacher scaffolded the instruction by directing the class discussions and explaining exactly how to apply reading strategies such as summarizing, clarifying, questioning, and predicting. After the first two lessons, the teacher gradually reduced the scaffolding. A follow-up MARSI questionnaire showed an increase in perceived use of metacognitive strategies from an average of 2.95 to 3.54 on a 5-point scale, indicating a shift from “medium” to “high” frequency according to the creators of MARSI. The greatest increase was found in support strategies (2.54 to 3.32) followed by global (2.91 to 3.54) and problem-solving (3.48 to 3.78). Nevertheless, problem-solving strategies remained the most frequently used in absolute terms. The experimental group raised their average score on the post-intervention reading comprehension test by roughly 10%, like the pupils studied by Akkakoson (2013). This is nevertheless a statistically significant effect which showed a moderate correlation with the perceived increase in metacognitive awareness as determined by MARSI.

Like Barrot (2016) and Pammu et al. (2014), Dabarera et al. (2014), found that most students relied heavily on problem-solving strategies, and used support strategies significantly less frequently (prior to the intervention). On the other hand, the support strategy subcategory is the area where students reported the highest increase in the frequency of use post-intervention. These findings indicate that an over-reliance on a single reading strategy subtype is suboptimal, since improved reading comprehension correlates with using various reading strategies more evenly. Although Barrot (2016), Akkakoson (2013) and Dabarera et al. (2014) advocated a multi-strategy approach where students learned different strategies simultaneously, the greatest improvement in reading comprehension was reported by Zhussupova and Kazbekova (2016), who used a single-strategy approach. However, it is unclear to what extent the results can be explained by this factor alone. For example, the proficiency level of pupils also differed substantially between the studies. Akkakoson (2013) studied participants who can reasonably be assumed to perform at the lower end of the spectrum for their age group, while Zhussupova and Kazbekova’s (2016) students were closer to the middle range. Moreover, Thailand and Kazakhstan placed 65th and 68th respectively on the PISA test 2018 (out of 76 countries) (OECD, 2019). While PISA tells us very little about the level of these particular students, it is nevertheless an indication that these two groups may be on a different level of proficiency compared to the students in the study by Dabarera et al. (2014) in Singapore (which, as a country, had the second-highest score worldwide on reading comprehension on the PISA 2018 test) (OECD, 2019). Singapore also has a strong bilingual policy, whereas most students in Kazakhstan and Thailand live in monolingual cultures where the advantages of learning English may not be as clearly felt by the students.

(17)

17

The language culture surrounding English in Singapore is closer to the situation in Sweden, indicating that the findings by Dabarera et al. (2014) may be more generalizable to a Swedish context.

(18)

18

5. Discussion

The research analyzed in this paper corroborates previous findings that explicit teaching of reading strategies positively impacts students’ reading comprehension. Zhussupova and Kazbekova (2016) reported the largest effect, perhaps partly due to the particular achievement profile of their students. In fact, several researchers claim that teaching reading strategies may be particularly effective for intermediate-level learners (Mehrdad, Ahghar & Ahghar, 2012; Ghavamnia, 2019). If this is the case, the participants in Akkakoson’s (2013) study may have lacked enough basic knowledge of English to make the best use of the strategy instruction provided. Such learners spend much of their cognitive resources on bottom-up strategies to decode the text, leaving little room for planned reading (McNeil, 2011; Plakans, 2009). In the context of the Swedish classroom, this implies that, overall, explicit teaching of reading strategies would likely be useful as a means to improve reading comprehension. However, the aforementioned findings suggest that reading strategy instruction would benefit weaker students the least, thus making it ineffective as an equalizing measure. For reading strategies to properly benefit this group, additional efforts would be required to improve their fluency to the point where they are less reliant on bottom-up strategies, thereby creating a more balanced approach.

One solution is to teach both bottom-up and top-down strategies in combination, as advocated by Lundahl (2019). As both strategies assume that reading comprehension increases the more the learner reads, Lundahl suggests that a combination of bottom-up and top-down strategies would inevitably increase reading comprehension as the two strategies cover the potential gaps of the other. To view bottom-up and top-down strategies as separate parts of a greater whole might be more beneficial to the teacher when designing material intended to increase both reading strategy use and reading comprehension in learners. When it comes to specific strategy subtypes, many students showed an overreliance on problem-solving strategies to the detriment of support strategies. Using strategies more evenly seemed to improve reading comprehension. Thus, when designing reading strategy instruction for students in the Swedish L2 classroom, it may be beneficial to pay particular attention to support strategies. Discussion, reading aloud and self-questioning are all examples of such support strategies (Mokhtari and Reichard, 2002, Appendix). Teachers could encourage self-questioning as a first step before engaging with a reading partner to discuss the questions, thus letting sociocultural theory inform the design of reading strategy instruction.

(19)

19

On the other hand, it is possible that the superior effects of the intervention designed by Zhussupova and Kazbekova (2016) were due to their adherence to a single-strategy model for instruction. However, their intervention also included more elaborate scaffolding, e.g. detailed step-by-step instructions to assist students’ self-reflection, which could be particularly helpful for weaker students. Another possibility is that the single-strategy model is especially advantageous for students of a particular level of proficiency; learners with limited cognitive ability might struggle with employing even a single strategy effectively, let alone several different ones in conjunction. As mentioned previously, Akkakoson (2013) notes that the more proficient students adapted better to the instruction. However, the smaller effect size observed in relation to the relatively advanced pupils studied by Dabarera et al. (2014) seems to refute any notion that advanced pupils respond better to a multi-strategy approach than other student groups. At the same time, a single-strategy approach increases the risk of over-reliance on a particular type of single-strategy.

Several researchers argue that teaching a wide variety of reading strategies is an important part of the instruction (Barrot, 2016; Daguay-James and Bulusan, 2020; Ali and Razali, 2019); the findings by Dabarera (2014) et al. indicate that students fared better when they relied on several different types of reading strategies equally. Although it is impossible to determine whether a single- or multi-strategy approach is the superior alternative at this point, there are strong indications that reading strategies should be taught in a thoroughly scaffolded environment, offering several different forms of support. In fact, the key difference between the experimental group and the control group in Akkakoson’s (2013) study was that the control group did not receive scaffolded, step-by-step instruction (reading strategies were still given as examples). This conscious negligence was enough to nullify the positive effects of instruction.

In light of these findings, the ZPD becomes a key concept to consider when implementing reading strategy instruction in a school environment. In a Swedish learner context, using sociocultural theory to inform lesson plans would benefit students while staying congruent with the syllabus for English. Using discussions to facilitate learning is a recurring concept in the core content and grading criteria (Skolverket, 2011b), and provides valuable support when teaching reading strategies. Piaget claims that the last developmental stage of cognition, relating to abstract thought and reasoning, arises through cooperation with others. In fact, he argued that reaching the last stage in the developmental cycle is not possible without participating in discussions with other people (Beard, 1969). Additionally, using a peer learning approach may be particularly effective at alleviating learning issues among less proficient learners (Almqvist, Malmqvist & Nilholm, 2015).

(20)

20

By designing group work for students of mixed proficiency levels, the teacher can provide opportunities for both groups to prosper. The choice of texts also becomes important when teaching strategies to weaker students. Ali and Razali (2019) argue that for a learner with a lower proficiency level to be able to assimilate more advanced strategies, the difficulty of the chosen text should correspond to the proficiency level of the learner. A too advanced text could lead to inappropriate use of strategies, thus being detrimental to the learner’s development.

For students proficient enough in English to benefit from instruction, explicit teaching of reading strategies may have positive effects beyond the English classroom, due to the metacognitive development often observed as a side effect. The Swedish school system emphasizes the importance of self-directed learning, an important component of metacognition (Korp, 2011). One of the strongest influences in shaping the Swedish educational system in this manner is Piaget’s view that the individual’s drive for knowledge and understanding are the essential motivating factors behind learning (Skolverket, 2011a). The national curriculum (Skolverket, 2011a), states that students should learn to actively participate in society by “[…] giving their best in responsible freedom”. Unfortunately, the increase in solitary work among students has led to decreased results in Swedish schools according to Korp (2011). Additionally, Korp notes that the knowledge gap between highly proficient and less proficient students has widened due to the influx in Swedish schools of students from socioeconomically weaker households in the past decades. Furthermore, the student body has become increasingly intercultural. This is another considerable challenge teachers must face. Currently, there is no extensive corpus of knowledge on how to conduct reading strategy instruction in multicultural settings (Karbalaei, 2010). Consequently, students’ different sociolinguistic backgrounds adds another layer of complexity on top of other factors. Provided that teachers successfully navigate the increasingly multicultural environment, reading strategy instruction may be an important stepping stone in helping students become independent problem-solvers, something that would greatly benefit them once they enter higher education and the job market. Thankfully, teachers have a lot of freedom in shaping reading strategy instruction. The core content is the principal guide for what teachers should work with and defines “strategies” in broad terms. Although language strategies are present in the syllabus for English in Swedish schools (Skolverket, 2011b), they are defined simply as “the ability to use different language strategies”. In the core content for receptive skills, strategies listed include evaluating texts and reading for different purposes. Further, the grading criteria list strategies for problem-solving, assimilating, and evaluating information. Due to being the most ubiquitous and

(21)

21

well-researched list, the 30 reading strategies found in the MARSI questionnaire could serve as a useful starting point for teachers looking to include reading strategy instruction in their practice.

(22)

22

6. Conclusion

In this paper, we have investigated to what extent reading strategy instruction affects reading comprehension in L2 learners, and how reading strategies should be taught in the Swedish upper secondary L2 classroom. It is clear that explicit teaching of reading strategies leads to greater reading comprehension in learners, although researchers report different effect sizes depending on the methodology and participant profile. In particular, there is some evidence that there are advantages to a single-strategy approach, as long as a variety of strategies are taught over time to avoid overreliance on a single type. Moreover, the findings indicate that reading strategy instruction improves metacognitive ability in readers, which can have important ramifications for fostering self-regulation, an important skill mentioned in the Swedish national curriculum that prepares students for higher education and the modern job market. To foster self-regulation, teachers should provide clear step-by-step instructions and proper scaffolding before gradually allowing students to work more independently. Weaker students would likely benefit from perpetual scaffolding and additional peer-centred activities.

It is also apparent that students of different language proficiency levels prefer different strategies, and react differently to instruction. Although all groups improve their reading comprehension in response to reading strategy instruction, current evidence suggests that intermediate students have the greatest growth potential. At this point, it is not clear that reading strategy instruction could serve as an equalizing measure between students of different proficiency levels, as the weakest students seem to benefit the least. To counteract this effect, we propose basing instruction on sociocultural theory, since research points to peer learning and group discussions as effective scaffolding that can be especially helpful for less proficient learners.

Of the three reading strategy subcategories found in MARSI, students were the most averse to using support strategies, even though higher relative use of support strategies correlate with better reading comprehension. Therefore, we argue that teachers in the Swedish L2 English classroom should pay particular attention to support strategies during their lessons. However, some limitations must be acknowledged in light of this study. Several of the studies were conducted with much more time, resources, and effort being invested in reading strategy instruction than what is possible in the Swedish classroom due to scheduling and time constraints. Furthermore, due to the different achievement profiles of participants in the studies, additional research is required to examine whether the findings are generalizable to other contexts.

(23)

23

On the whole, research on the instruction of reading strategies for L2 learners in the Western part of the world has been relatively sparse, and non-existent in a Swedish context. This raises questions as to why the field has been neglected thus far. The promising outcomes of teaching reading strategies for L2 learners in the developing world should be taken as a sign that reading strategies should be studied in the West as well. Additionally, due to the increasing heterogeneity of classrooms in Sweden and abroad, research should further investigate how reading strategy instruction can best be applied in multicultural settings. To follow up this project, it would be useful to conduct an empirical study in a Swedish school to evaluate the effects of reading strategy instruction in this specific context. Finally, if our own experience as students at the English department at Malmö University is indicative of the state of reading strategy instruction within higher education in Sweden, devoting additional resources to teaching reading strategies explicitly could positively impact student outcomes.

(24)

24

References:

Akkakoson, S. (2013). The Relationship between Strategic Reading Instruction,

Student Learning of L2-Based Reading Strategies and L2 Reading Achievement. Journal

of Research in Reading 36(4), 422–450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jrir.12004

Ali, A.M. & Razali, A.B. (2019). A Review of Studies on Cognitive and Metacognitive Reading Strategies in Teaching Reading Comprehension for ESL/EFL Learners. Canadian Center of

Science and Education 12(6), 94–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n6p94 Almqvist, L., Malmqvist, J. & Nilholm, C. (2015). Vilka stödinsatser främjar uppfyllelse av

kunskapsmål för elever i svårigheter? – En syntes av meta-analyser. Vetenskapsrådet. Retrieved from

http://hj.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:877682/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Barrot, J. S. (2016). ESL Learners Use of Reading Strategies Across Different Text Types. The

Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 25(5-6), 883–892. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0313-2

Beard, R. M. (1969). Piagets utvecklingspsykologi. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand.

Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A. & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System 42, 462–473. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.020

Daguay–James, H. & Bulusan, F. (2020). Metacognitive Strategies on Reading English Texts of ESL Freshmen: A Sequential Explanatory Mixed Design. TESOL International Journal 15(1), 20–30. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1257215.pdf

Gatcho, A.R.G. & Hajan, B.H. (2019). Augmenting ESL Learners’ Reading Skills through Explicit Instruction of Metacognitive Strategies. JEELS (Journal of English Education and

Linguistics Studies), 6(1), 1–23. Retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED605010.pdf

Ghavamnia, M. (2019). Improving Iranian Graduate Students’ Performance in Reading Scientific Articles in English Through Explicit Strategy Instruction. Reading Psychology 40(7), 612–637. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2019.1658667

(25)

25

Iwai, Y. (2011). The Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategies: Pedagogical Implications for EFL/ESL Teachers. The Reading Matrix 11(2), 150–159. Retrieved from

http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/april_2011/iwai.pdf

Karbalaei, A. (2010). A Comparison of the Metacognitive Reading Strategies Used by EFL and ESL Readers. The Reading Matrix 10(2), 165–180. Retrieved

from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/sept_2010/alireza_karbalaei.pdf

Korp, H. (2011). Kunskapsbedömning - vad, hur och varför? Skolverket.

https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=2666

Lundahl, B. (2019). Engelsk språkdidaktik: texter, kommunikation, språkutveckling. (Fourth edition). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

McNeil, L. (2011). Investigating the contributions of background knowledge and reading comprehension strategies to L2 reading comprehension: an exploratory study. Reading and

Writing 24, 883–902. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9230-6

Mehrdad, A. G., Ahghar, M. R. & Ahghar, M. (2012). The Effect of Teaching Cognitive

and Metacognitive Strategies on EFL Students’ Reading Comprehension Across Proficiency Levels. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, 3757–3763. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.142

Mokhtari, K., Reichard, C. Assessing Students’ Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies(2002). Journal of Educational Psychology 94(2), 249–259. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249

OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.

Pammu, A., Amir, Z. & Mohd. Maasum, T. N. R. T. (2014). Metacognitive Reading Strategies of Less Proficient Tertiary Learners. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 118, 357–364. DOI:

(26)

26

Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8, 252–266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.05.001 Skolverket. (2011a). Curriculum for the upper secondary school.

https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=2975

Skolverket. (2011b). Engelska.

https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.4fc05a3f164131a74181056/1535372297288/Engli sh-swedish-school.pdf

Skolvärlden. (October 19, 2020). Svensk skola dålig på att kompensera för socioekonomisk bakgrund.

https://skolvarlden.se/artiklar/svensk-skola-dalig-pa-att-kompensera-socioekonomisk-bakgrund

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from

https://home.fau.edu/musgrove/web/vygotsky1978.pdf

Zhussupova, R. & Kazbekova, M. (2016). Metacognitive strategies as points in

teaching reading comprehension. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 228, 593–600. DOI: